I refer to the malaysiakini report PM: Don't be emotional over Joy decision.

Chief Justice Ahmad Fairuz's judgment in Lina Joy's appeal said something that makes me wonder whether Joy was accorded due respect and fairness in her trial. One sentence, brief but disturbing, suggests that the Chief Justice either did not grasp the evident genuineness of Lina's conversion to Christianity, or consciously misrepresented her in a disparaging way.

After asserting that Lina can convert to Islam only after the relevant Islamic authority approves her renunciation of faith, he goes on to say, 'In other words, one cannot embrace or leave a religion according to one's whims'.

Is the Chief Justice suggesting that she woke up one morning and decided, 'Oh, I feel like making life difficult for myself?' Or that in one fanciful moment,she plunged thoughtlessly into a new religion?

I do not know what - if anything - was specifically testified in court about Lina Joy's decision to become a Christian.

But a rational, impartial, learned and judicious mind would consider the fact that Lina Joy's decision came at great cost, yet she did not give up. She persevered ten years for this cause pressing on through appeal upon appeal in the face of the monumental challenge. She has endured rejection, ostracism, and anguish.

Can 'whim and fancy' sustain a person through such circumstances over such a long time? Lina Joy's life testimony speaks of conviction, not impulse.

It is hard to imagine a judge not seeing this, unless he is assuming self-made powers to judge the sincerity of a person's profession of faith, or unless belittling her serves a purpose in his line of argument.

Chief Justice Fairuz's insinuation that Lina Joy's conversion was whimsical says more about his judgment than her character.